a "sudden realization" that attempting to control is futile so you automatically let go of it. You can't "induce" enlightenment it just happens to you. What I don't get is how that leads to the "end of suffering" that Zen purports to achieve
— khaled

Because they say the origin of all suffering is (inevitably unfulfilled) desires, so giving up trying to control things, giving up desires and just accepting everything, makes you immune to suffering. So they say. — Pfhorrest

They claim that ignorance (of our true nature: emptiness) is the cause. You can’t suffer if there’s no you.

I think a major misconception is that people are somehow unable to feel or find meaning for themselves and that it must be administered by an authority of some kind.
— praxis

There are too many people whose lives clearly lack independent, internal meaning for that to be a major misconception. — Artemis

I’m not sure how to interpret this. You could be talking about religious or non-religious people. Also, meaning, of the sort we’re discussing, is necessarily interdependent or dependent on others and our culture.

The manufacturing industry is still in a recession, which hurts many of Trumps supporters. More broadly though, regulations and government assistance programs can stabilize an economy and lessen the effects of a downturn. That would be good for Trump supporters in the long term.

Those trade deals also cover manufacturing. — NOS4A2

No trade deal can compensate for ever-increasing manufacturing efficiency (automation). That's a Trumpian fantasy that his followers apparently indulge themselves with.

What would be good according to you doesn’t necessarily mesh with the interests of Trump supporters. Increasing regulations and government hand-outs aren’t normally on the menu. — NOS4A2

I read the book Xtrix refers to and besides the potential long term economic costs already mentioned, in the book it discusses other costs of deregulation and 'smaller government' for the kind of people that support Trump. Industrial pollution in red states is not healthy. Diverting tax money away from the public sector and into the hands of industrial giants may sound like a good plan for economic growth, however, the data shows that many industries are attracted to areas with a healthy public sector.

If you're referring to USMCA, Democrats worked for over a year to improve the deal.

I guess they knew a good deal when they saw it. — NOS4A2

I don't know what they thought when they saw it but obviously they felt it needed work and they improved it.

The point of any trade policy isn’t just immediate results, but also long term ones as well. — NOS4A2

The manufacturing industry is still in a recession, which hurts many of Trumps supporters. More broadly though, regulations and government assistance programs can stabilize an economy and lessen the effects of a downturn. That would be good for Trump supporters in the long term.

and also recent deals with Japan, Canada and Mexico which mostly Center around agriculture, things are looking up for farmers. I’d love to hear a Democrat’s policy towards agriculture but I’m not aware of any. — NOS4A2

If you're referring to USMCA, Democrats worked for over a year to improve the deal.

I think a major misconception is that people are somehow unable to feel or find meaning for themselves and that it must be administered by an authority of some kind.

They see the government as more of a problem than a solution, and prefer it stay out of they private affairs rather than meddle in it. — NOS4A2

Things like abortion are kinda private. :grimace:

So it appears someone who cuts regulations, lessens government assistance, and limits government power is exactly in their best interests. — NOS4A2

Speaking of meddling, Trumps trade war hasn't panned out well for American farmers.

A safe place to hear and discuss life and ethics and all that. Otherwise all the messages around us tend to be Coca Cola ads and pop culture. People's brains slowly disintegrate. — Artemis

A common refrain, that atheism leads to nihilism or whatever but how true is this? I don’t believe there’s any evidence that atheists are less moral or ignorant than the religious, in fact the opposite may be the case. Also, the religious are far from immune to rampant consumerism, greed, and manipulation by the rich and powerful.

I hate him because he’s anti-identity-politics and I LOVE identity politics. I can’t get enough identity politics! What would politics even be without identities.

What are your thoughts on this matter? — Wallows

Simply that his 12 Rules for Life must be crap and he’s laughing all the way to the bank (with a little help from the Clonazepam).

Maybe you believe that you’re conducting some sort of social science study? as misguided as that would be.

I’m glad there’s an opposing view from the majority but it would be better if it felt like it was coming from someone who was actually invested and not just going through the tedious motions.

Yeah you guys welcomed all the nevertrump neoconservatives and neoliberals with open arms. Odd bedfellows. — NOS4A2

I didn’t believe you were Russian troll before but given how long you’ve been doing this and your unwavering consistency I can only conclude that you’re either being paid or are batshit cray cray. You don’t seem crazy though. Your responses feel purposeful and strategic.

I can respect anyone who honors their sworn oaths. I could even respect you for honoring whatever contractual agreement you may have made to troll Americans online.

pious sanctimony — NOS4A2

Thanks, that made me laugh. The one conservative senator who appears to have upheld conservative values is a fake and a traitor.

That doesn't sound anything at all like what I'm arguing against. Or what I'm arguing for, for that matter, if you've just confused the direction. — Pfhorrest

The general direction seems to be towards reason and away from faith, yes?

Sapiens have the capacity of reason but I think it would be a stretch to say that we’re a rational species, and in fact our success to date may have hinged on our ability to form collective fictions and faithfully hold to them.

How about “Dogmatic Faith in Reason.”

What you’re witnessing is the self destruction of the Democratscy. — Brett

True. :shade:

It was hysterical — NOS4A2

I thought it was funny too.

Speaking of high emotions, Mitt chooses to honor his oath of impartial justice. It does my heart good.

:rofl:

Funny how when Trump does some like that it's just "Trump being Trump," tearing down the shackles of political correctness or whatever, but when anyone else does it it's a pearl-clutching disgrace!

Is that what they are spinning it as? — NOS4A2

The hivemind characterizes it as a "tantrum."

I also liked watching nervous Nancy get the snub. Quite a sight. — NOS4A2

Nervous? Is that what they call open displays of defiance in the Trump hivemind?

Because the mad axe wielding British bloke ate it?

He doesn’t mention happiness even once. Rather, he mentions heaven, comfort, inheritance, fulfillment, mercy, vision, title, persecution, and reward. I suggest that this all boils down to meaning. There can be pleasure, but there’s no happiness without meaning.

5" x 5" still-life

Interesting. Digital, right? What program?

I've done a bit of digital with photoshop and a pen display.

A good size faction of the country is programmed to dislike “big govament”, but don’t think much beyond lower taxes, letting the industries they’re employed by do whatever the fuck they want, and disliking any other governmental restrictions that effect them personally.

3. There is no question that more evidence will be forthcoming that will corroborate allegations. — 3017amen

This could be costly for some Republican senator’s in their elections.

The idea that the government can be relied upon to cure all or even most societal ills is liberalism at its worst. — Hanover

Conversely, the idea that those with power will not abuse it is conservatism at its worst.

I'm thankful for a Constitution that keeps this angry group of Democrats from undoing the will of the people. — Hanover

Perhaps you should be thankful for the Republican senators who betray their oaths of impartial justice and choose loyalty to their party over loyalty to the American people.

5" x 7" plein-air

I’m actually related to the Fraser clan.

• The Aesthetics of Meaning and Thought, Mark Johnson — 180 Proof

At a glance it looks like this book is highly rated. You like?

That’s the problem I have with Van Gogh, slavishly painting away day after day, the same thing over and over and over, like a moth at a window. What’s his intention, what does he expect? Seemingly nothing. That’s who he is, that’s his whole history.
What’s the point of all that compared to a Picasso who tears art apart, dissects it like a frog, then puts it back together again. He does that over and over and over. Van Gogh never did it once. — Brett

Van Gogh had a very distinctive style/aesthetic. We could give him credit for that vision. But anyway, I notice that you use the phrase “over and over and over” for both artists. It seems they were both bound to their respective niches.

Is that what sets it apart from what we’re calling art? — Brett

I’m not saying that. I thought I made it clear in my previous post that I think commercial art is still art, just with the very intuitive distinction that it’s commercial. It may not always be apparent how commercial artworks are, and marketers may deliberately attempt to deceive buyers in this regard.

Personally I don’t like advertising. But should it be regarded as the lesser of the two because of its objectives. If it’s money’s that separates it from “art” then should a big price on a painting remove it from the field? — Brett

In my opinion, it's not necessarily money itself that defines commercial art but the intent or purpose with which it's created. A clever entrepreneur could effectively brand and use advertising to market an artist, like Milli Vanilli for instance. Something like this might be even easier with a painter because there doesn't need to be live performances, and abstract art doesn't necessarily even require good technique. It could be full-on 'emperor with no clothes'. It would still be art, however, in my opinion, just not good art, unless it somehow induced an aesthetic experience and/or expressed a meaningful concept.

I understand that another problem is simply that the wealthy, with their privileged position, are good at sheltering their money from taxation, so it's very difficult if not impossible to do.

I feel that a lot of art done today is created by what I’d call art directors more than artists, Damien Hearst being an example. Art Directors in the sense that they’re very good at pulling together contemporary symbols, ideas and attitudes, just like Art Directors in advertising pull together contemporary elements and trendy ideas to produce commercials. — Brett

I think what distinguishes commercial art is that it’s done for purposes other than self expression, like advertising and branding, or producing art for the primary purpose of making money.

ну да.

I’ll still be here defending you from the snakes, even if you lay with them. — NOS4A2

You appear to spend the vast majority of your time here in the thankless job of defending Trump.

And that’s bad?
— praxis

Bias is not bad? What do you think? Eh, you've already shown that when you show bias, it's good, according to yourself. — god must be atheist

What's so bad about being in favor of something like stoicism, or disfavor of someone who doesn't share your values? It's true that I may be prone to confirmation errors and the like, but in your case, I'm not in any position of power whereby you might be treated unfairly. In any case, I'm just being honest. We all have biases. If we can acknowledge and be mindful of them they are less likely to be maladaptively expressed.

I hate to think of you living in a childish fantasy where no bias exists.

Can you point out the mockery? — god must be atheist

The version of Pigliucci‘s work you describe in the OP of this topic (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7163/stoicism-is-an-attractive-life-philosophy-but-can-it-be-taught/p1) is absurd, a parody designed to make it look ridiculous. In the end, you even acknowledge its absurdity, asking things like "where did I make an assumptional error in creating a premise to my arguments," and flaunt your mockery.

Your bias for Stoicism is unfounded, because you are not Stoic. ... — god must be atheist

More of your clownish drivel.

Your argument that purportedly supports your belief in the law of attraction is very weak. It is infinitesimally weak. It is so weak a five-year-old could point it out to you. So please don't insult my intelligence by asking me to show it to you how weak it is. — god must be atheist

I would never insult the intelligence of someone who couldn't argue as well as a five-year-old.

You are bitter because I put in straightforward, irrefutable arguments about the relationship between man and man's believed god. — god must be atheist

Huh?

your bias for your favourite philosophical trends and your bias against me is clear here — god must be atheist

And that’s bad?

mocked Massimo Pigliucci‘s work on stoicism
— praxis

You are not very Stoic about my valid criticism of Stoicism; you are not Stoic about it at all. — god must be atheist

Some of your criticism may have been valid but nevertheless accompanied by mockery.

The problem here lies in the law of attraction
— praxis

No serious thinker believes in the law of attraction. You do — god must be atheist

Well, this topic that you’ve started shows your favorable interest in Bartrix, and it actually did cross my mind prior to reading this topic that you might be the same person, so I might be becoming a believer.